COMPLAINT FILED: 25.06.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 31st JULY 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1400/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT R. Suryanarayana,<br /> No. 99, 2nd Main,<br /> MICO Layout,<br /> BTM II Stage,<br /> Bangalore – 560 076.<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Principal,<br /> Sudarshan Vidya Mandir,<br /> 4 T Block,<br /> Jayanagar,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the tuition fees of Rs.8,855/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant’s grandson S. Monish applied for a seat in OP institution for the academic year 2008-09. In that regard he has paid the fees of Rs.8,855/-. In the meantime he got the seat for PCME at Vijaya Junior College, Jayanagar. Hence he requested the OP to refund the tuition fees. S. Monish has not attended any classes conducted by the OP. No such education is imparted, but still OP failed to refund the said fees. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. When his repeated requests and demands, went in futile, he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP raised the defence denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP if once the fees is collected in case of withdrawal from the admission in the middle of the academic year no refund will be made. With all that on humanitarian consideration OP refunded Rs.3,600/- out of Rs.7,600/- collected. Complainant received the said amount without any objection, but still with a malafide intention filed this complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant got admitted his grandson at OP institution and paid Rs.8,855/- as an admission fees for the first year PUC science. OP received the said amount and passed the provisional receipt on 24.05.2008. The copy of the receipt is produced. With all that unfortunately OP has filed an affidavit contending that it has collected only Rs.7,600/-. So the approach of the OP does not appears to be fair and honest. It is further contended by the complainant that his grandson did not attend a single class at OP institution, nor OP imparted the education as contemplated by conducting the classes. Actually his grandson has not availed any services from the OP. <br /> <br /> 7. It is further contended by the complainant that his grandson got the seat at Vijaya Junior College in PCME, that is why he sought for the refund of the fees paid to the OP. Though he made repeated requests and demands to OP, there was no response. Thus he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP, which has constrained him to file this complaint on 25.06.2008, that is within a span of one month from the date of admission and payment of the tuition fees to the OP. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 8. As against this unimpeachable evidence OP has come up with a defence that complainant has received Rs.3,600/- as a full and final settlement with regard to the dispute on hand. It appears the said payment is made on 21.07.2008 that is after the filing of this complaint. If OP’s approach was fair and honest, it would have settled the matter before filing of this complaint, when complainant approached them to refund the fees. They have not done so. Under the circumstances for no fault of the complainant, he was made to file this complaint before the Forum, which must have naturally caused him both mental agony and financial loss. Here we find the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In our considered view the justice will be met by directing the OP to refund 75% of the fees collected along with a litigation cost of Rs.300/-. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.7,140/- (Rs.3,600/- received by the complainant be given in deduction out of Rs.7,140/-) and pay a litigation cost of Rs.300/-. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 31st day of July 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br />